Henry IV, Part II, Part III

After posting about the talk back performance that Carol and I saw last Wednesday I realized that I still hadn't said a lot about the play itself. I was a little surprised at the beginning of the talk back when Beverly Bullock asked if anyone had ever seen Part II before. She went on to say something about it not being performed very much or more typically conflated into Part I. That question is more commonly asked with regard to the Henry VI plays which are even less seldom performed both in England and in the US. The RSC's highly successful production that we saw in England (all three plays in one day - 9+ hours) has probably increased people's exposure to those plays, but I still think more people have seen Henry IV Part II.

There has been a lot scholarly speculation about why there are two parts to Henry IV. Some think it was originally intended to be one play, but there was too much material. Part of this is due to the fact that Part I ends with Hal having "redeemed the time" through his performance at Shrewsbury, but throughout Part II he is still seems to be in trouble with his father. Back when I first saw these plays in 1960-61 I read somewhere that Shakespeare wrote Part II because Part I was so much fun and I have always like that explanation.

After seeing Part II as part of Age of Kings I hadn't seen it again until this year. Back in 2003 we saw the Lincoln Center production of Henry IV which was a conflation of the two plays. I can understand why that is tempting for directors and producers. While Part I is by far superior, probably because it is the best history play ever written, there is a lot of good stuff in Part II especially towards the end. Since, as Peter Saccio once commented, little seems to happen at the beginning, it is fairly easy to cut a lot of it and tack the balance on to Part I. That probably is what temped Orson Welles to go that route in "The Chimes at Midnight," a conflated version of the two plays. I have only seen a few parts of that, but to me it was ghastly.

Anyway after having not seen Part II for over 40 years I have seen it three times in 2008. First on the BBC video with David Gwillim and Anthony Quayle in anticipation of our trip to England, then in England at the RSC and finally at Shakespearenyc. I have to say that the play has grown on me. While not as funny as Part I, the interaction between Falstaff and the Chief Justice is funny and the scenes in Gloucestershire are priceless. At the RSC production the actors playing Shallow and Silence were excellent when Shallow gave the "Hem boys" watchword, he suddenly raised his voice causing Silence to fall off his bench. Benjamin Curns who played Falstaff at the Shakespearenyc I thought, said the famous "We have heard the chimes at midnight" line better than I have heard it before. I am still waiting to hear someone do Feeble's passage, "We all owe God a death . ." the way I think it should be said.

Then, of course, there is Henry IV's soliloquy on sleep ending with the most famous line ever written about kingship, "Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown," all of which is a lead into the death bed scene and the transition of Hal to Henry V. As everyone knows the climax of the play is Hal's, now Henry V, rejection of Falstaff. I have now seen it played a number of different ways, David Gwillim played it in a way that was consistent with his treatment of Falstaff throughout both plays. Geoffrey Streatfeild played it reluctantly, knowing he had to do it, but seemingly reluctant to do so. He conveyed that by hesitating for a long time before saying the fateful - "I know you not. . ." In the talk back in New York Brian Morvant said that his reading of the part was similar to Geoff's (we're old friends - a Falstaffian like claim on my part!) although it wasn't as obvious from the way he played it or at least not to me.

The rejection is in large measure what determines people's reaction to Hal and even Henry V. One thing that I have noticed just recently is that the rejection isn't quite as complete and cold as one might think. Henry calls on Falstaff to repent as he has repented offering him possible future access if he does so. In addition he also offers to provide some sort of pension so that Falstaff is not reduced to poverty. If we look at Falstaff objectively somehow getting past his attractive features it is possible to see that he got better than he deserved.

If any evidence is needed of Shakespeare's brilliance it can be seen in how he took one play, the anonymous "Famous Victories of Henry V" and made it into three plays each of which is packed with fascinating stuff. Part II is an important part of what has been called the Henriad, something I appreciate much more than I did at the beginning of 2008.

Henry IV Part II - Fathers and Sons

As mentioned earlier, Carol and I saw Shakespearenyc's production of Henry IV, Part II this past Wednesday night after seeing Part I about 10 days earlier. In my second post on the first play I briefly mentioned how Part I has a lot of content about fathers and sons. In fact this is true of both plays.

Back in 2003 I took a graduate level course at Montclair State on the history plays which was my first in depth reading of these plays in years. When I read Part I I was struck by the famous confrontation between Hal and his father. This is the scene that follows after the great tavern scene where Hal and Falstaff act out what it is going to be like when Hal faces his father at the court. For all the laughter in the tavern scene, the next scene cannot be enjoyable to Hal as his father basically chews him up one side and down the other.

By this time in my own life I had lived out the son's role and also the father's role. That is, I had been on both the receiving and giving end of such chewings out. Although in the play we are aware that Hal's wild side is primarily play acting what permeates the scene is a father not being quite sure of whether his son will measure up and the son trying to defend himself. In the BBC version when John Finch accuses David Gwillian of basically being on the rebels side, the shocked outrage in Gwillian's face is evident as he says -"Do not think it so, you shall not find it so!"

In spite of Hal's performance on the battlefield at Shrewsbury, Hal is still under the same cloud in Part II. This is most evident in the famous death bed scene where Hal walks off with the crown in the mistaken belief that his father is dead. Understandably Henry is outraged leading to another vicious verbal attack on his son - "Couldst thou not forbear me half an hour." This is after saying to Hal's brothers - "Son's what things you are." When we saw the Lincoln Center production in 2003 with Kevin Kline as Falstaff there was a noticeable murmer throughout the audience when Henry spoke those lines.

Hal's response, of course, restores him to his father's favor so that Henry can give his son his last words of advice. In the BBC version when David Gwillian (Hal) starts defending himself, the look on John Finch's face (Henry IV) said to me - "here I was so sure I was right, I was wrong and now I have been so cruel to my son." I am confident that I am not the other father who had those same feelings on at least one occasion. Jumping to a conclusion only to be proven wrong and to bitterly regret what I said. Parenthood gives us a lot of power - almost arbitrary power, years later memory and hindsight can generate a lot of guilt about how that power was used or perhaps mis-used.

Similarly in that version when Henry does die, the look on Hal's face is one of - "I knew this would come, but now the reality really hits home." I saw this version sometime after my own father died in November of 2002 and I could identify with the look on Gwilian's face as soon as saw it. I am not trying to exaggerate the change, but there is a change, if nothing else becoming the older generation, the holder of the family's history and tradition. I probably said this before, but it shows why these plays are so timeless, they can be read or heard on many levels and the issues are still relevant and will always be relevant.

Henry IV, Part I - Part II

Almost a week since my last post and I wanted to write a second post on Henry IV, Part I before moving on to Part II which Carol and I saw last night. I have written before about how the history plays especially Part I were my introduction to English literature. While this may seem obvious I think how we are introduced to Shakespeare (and I am sure other things as well) makes a big difference.

This became very clear to me a year or so ago when I started helping a friend's son with his school work. He attends a private all male school and their introduction to Shakespeare as freshman was "Romeo and Juliet." This might make some sense based on the age of the doomed lovers and the young love aspect of the play, but I really don't think this is the best way to introduce adolescent young men to Shakespeare.

Whether or not single sex education is a good idea or not is another question. But once that decision is made it seems to me that it opens up possibilities in some areas such as choosing their introduction to Shakespeare. Given those circumstances it seems to me that Part I of Henry IV would be ideal. It is after all about young men - Hal and Hotspur, but especially Hal.

There is a great deal in this play (and in Part II) about the relationships between fathers and sons. None of us today, of course, are princes being prepared to inherit the crown, but almost all of us have some relationship with our fathers where we are preparing and they are preparing us to become adults - to become senior members of the next generation of the family. As a result the relationship between Hal and his father, the need for learning responsibility and the temptation of the tavern are all issues that are relevant to the lives of young men.

This is not to suggest that they are irrelevant to young women, but I think there can be differences in how each gender approaches these issues. This is especially true in a single sex school, it seems to me that part of the reason for their existence is the opportunity to focus on relevant issues in that kind of environment. In such situations, plays like Henry IV Part I can play at least two roles. It provides a forum and/or a process for discussing those issues and it can serve as an introduction to Shakespeare that can change one's life - it certainly did mine. After beyond the great language, the drama etc. etc., one of the reason Shakespeare continues to matter is because the issues he explored continue to matter.

I would love to have the opportunity to conduct an experiment in a school like the one in question here. In the experiment when it came time to teach Shakespeare in freshman English I would teach Henry IV, Part I to one class while the other classes would do Romeo and Juliet or whatever else they think is appropriate. The primary goal of the experiment would be to see which play develops the higher level of interest. My money is on Henry IV, Part I.

Henry IV, Part I Part I

Three posts in one day is a record, but I wasn't planning on the Greed and Debt stuff and have wanted to write about "Henry IV, Part I," since last Sunday. Carol and I went to NYC to see ShakespeareNYC's production of what has been described as the best history play that will ever be written. We saw this play as part of seeing all of eight of Shakespeare's history plays in Stratford on Avon in February so it was a little bit of an adjustment to see it on a smaller scale in a small theater that had to be only about 25% full.

One thing that struck me was how difficult that must be for actors to perform before such an empty house. Supposedly Alan Howard once said something about actors about to go on stage having enough adrenalin to kill a horse or something like that. It must be incredibly frustrating to reach that emotional state, see such a small turnout and still deliver a top quality performance. I know as an amateur preacher, primarily of stewardship sermons, that I have gotten resentful and sometimes distracted by such small turnouts.

While it certainly wasn't the best production I have ever seen it is a great play and I get something out of it every time I see it. In this production the actor playing Falstaff did an especially good job with the "catechism" on honor - looking directly at audience members as he asked "Can honor heal a wound?" etc. It was very effective.

"Henry IV, Part I" is the first history play that I saw from beginning to end. My introduction to the history plays was the 1960's "Age of Kings" television series. My freshman English class at Wayne High School was told to watch it and I was the only one stupid enough to do so. Each play was divided into two sections and I came in for the second half of "Richard II" which I didn't like then and still don't like now probably because I dislike the title character so much.

Then the next week came the first section of "Henry IV, Part I" which I know included the great tavern scene. I know that because while there were no commercials in these shows there was an intermission and the host introduced the second section by saying something like "and now what you have all been waiting for, 45 minutes of Falstaff" or something like that. Well I hadn't been waiting for it and I didn't like Falstaff either, I thought him to be too silly, a strange idea for a 14 year old which probably says more about me than about anything else.

I think it was in large measure because probably without knowing it I had already begun my fascination with Hal later Henry V. I think in some way I understood the point of his soliloquy in Act I where he tells the audience that his wild behavior is all an act. So I still wasn't that impressed by the first section of this play, but the second section a week later hooked me for good. All the sections had sub titles this one was "The Road to Shrewsbury" and the host forewarned us that Shrewsbury was a battlefield.

I think it was the final confrontation between Hal and Hotspur that did it for me, not the physical fighting, but the speeches. Hotspur was played by Sean Connery and I have never seen a better one, Hal was played by Robert Hardy and he was good as well. One thing is for sure after that I looked forward to my hour plus each Monday with Shakespeare and the history plays - very strange for a high school freshman. There is still a lot more to say so there will be another post about this play, but certainly not today and probably not until Sunday.